Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[M14 Shooter]

Privatizing Social Security is a vote losing proposition and, more importantly, is completely unnecessary. Jeb seems confused -- or is he deliberately confusing?

The old age pension part of SS is by far the largest program. Its actuarial problems are small to modest. Simply removing the cap on taxing earnings ($117,000 in 2014) would solve the funding shortfall. The last I looked SS old age pensions are also incredibly popular among both Democratic and Republican voters.

The disability insurance program is more of a challenge, despite its being far smaller in budgetary terms. More workers have been applying for DI benefits in recent years due to a weak economy. The problem would ease if labor force participation picks up. Will it ever pick up is the question?

Medicare (linked to but not an integral part of Social Security) and Medicaid (federal-state funding under public assistance) have both been plagued by rising costs under a broken health care system. Obamacare has made some inroads towards reining in costs -- and would have done much more if a single payer program had been passed instead of the hodgepodge that we have now.

But don't Republicans -- Jeb included -- want to kill Obamacare? Doing so would return us to the status quo which was largely responsible for the problem to begin with. Of course, there is always Paul Ryan's voucher plan, which would last about 10 minutes of careful scrutiny in terms of its impact on older citizens.

This is madness! It is also rank stupidity! I can't believe that there are Republican policy advisers out there counseling Jeb (and Chris Christie) on Social Security and Medicare. Hillary or any other Democratic candidate would tear Jeb or Christie to pieces in a debate, making them look as ignorant as they apparently are.

When you copy things from another website, it is customary to also post a link.
Otherwise, you're dishonestly passing this off as you own thoughts.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

For the most part, and even more so for non-professionals

I see.
I have no issue with you lying to yourself like this -- but do you lie to your kids in a similar manner?

Here's a quiz for you - Suppose you received in the mail a letter from a man who claims to be able to predict the market, asking you to invest with him, and he makes a prediction in the letter that the S&P 500 will go up over the next week. He turns out to be correct in his prediction. Do you invest with him? Of course not, it was one week, one prediction. But suppose he kept sending you letters, week after week - and each week he successfully predicts which way the market moves. How many weeks until you are convinced to invest with him?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the fact that you 're lying to yourself.
Neither are you.

I'm betting you'd lose a fortune on the guy after about 10 weeks of him 'successfully' predicting the market.

Apparently. you don't even know you're lying to yourself. Scary.

You just keep going, don't you?

Not participating - just goin along, always having a one liner to shoot out, and repeat over and over if needed - but you're actually a total dumbass who has no clue about anything, while maintaining you can predict economic events 30 years into the future.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I see.
I have no issue with you lying to yourself like this -- but do you lie to your kids in a similar manner?

Here's a quiz for you - Suppose you received in the mail a letter from a man who claims to be able to predict the market, asking you to invest with him, and he makes a prediction in the letter that the S&P 500 will go up over the next week. He turns out to be correct in his prediction. Do you invest with him? Of course not, it was one week, one prediction. But suppose he kept sending you letters, week after week - and each week he successfully predicts which way the market moves. How many weeks until you are convinced to invest with him?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the fact that you 're lying to yourself.
Neither are you.

I'm betting you'd lose a fortune on the guy after about 10 weeks of him 'successfully' predicting the market.

Apparently. you don't even know you're lying to yourself. Scary.

You just keep going, don't you? Not participating...

You're lying to yourself and thus to me..
Given that, participation is impossible.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Privatizing Social Security is a vote losing proposition and, more importantly, is completely unnecessary. Jeb seems confused -- or is he deliberately confusing?

The old age pension part of SS is by far the largest program. Its actuarial problems are small to modest. Simply removing the cap on taxing earnings ($117,000 in 2014) would solve the funding shortfall. The last I looked SS old age pensions are also incredibly popular among both Democratic and Republican voters.

The disability insurance program is more of a challenge, despite its being far smaller in budgetary terms. More workers have been applying for DI benefits in recent years due to a weak economy. The problem would ease if labor force participation picks up. Will it ever pick up is the question?

Medicare (linked to but not an integral part of Social Security) and Medicaid (federal-state funding under public assistance) have both been plagued by rising costs under a broken health care system. Obamacare has made some inroads towards reining in costs -- and would have done much more if a single payer program had been passed instead of the hodgepodge that we have now.

But don't Republicans -- Jeb included -- want to kill Obamacare? Doing so would return us to the status quo which was largely responsible for the problem to begin with. Of course, there is always Paul Ryan's voucher plan, which would last about 10 minutes of careful scrutiny in terms of its impact on older citizens.

This is madness! It is also rank stupidity! I can't believe that there are Republican policy advisers out there counseling Jeb (and Chris Christie) on Social Security and Medicare. Hillary or any other Democratic candidate would tear Jeb or Christie to pieces in a debate, making them look as ignorant as they apparently are.

When you copy things from another website, it is customary to also post a link.
Otherwise, you're dishonestly passing this off as you own thoughts.

He didn't copy it from another website.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Privatizing Social Security is a vote losing proposition and, more importantly, is completely unnecessary. Jeb seems confused -- or is he deliberately confusing?

The old age pension part of SS is by far the largest program. Its actuarial problems are small to modest. Simply removing the cap on taxing earnings ($117,000 in 2014) would solve the funding shortfall. The last I looked SS old age pensions are also incredibly popular among both Democratic and Republican voters.

The disability insurance program is more of a challenge, despite its being far smaller in budgetary terms. More workers have been applying for DI benefits in recent years due to a weak economy. The problem would ease if labor force participation picks up. Will it ever pick up is the question?

Medicare (linked to but not an integral part of Social Security) and Medicaid (federal-state funding under public assistance) have both been plagued by rising costs under a broken health care system. Obamacare has made some inroads towards reining in costs -- and would have done much more if a single payer program had been passed instead of the hodgepodge that we have now.

But don't Republicans -- Jeb included -- want to kill Obamacare? Doing so would return us to the status quo which was largely responsible for the problem to begin with. Of course, there is always Paul Ryan's voucher plan, which would last about 10 minutes of careful scrutiny in terms of its impact on older citizens.

This is madness! It is also rank stupidity! I can't believe that there are Republican policy advisers out there counseling Jeb (and Chris Christie) on Social Security and Medicare. Hillary or any other Democratic candidate would tear Jeb or Christie to pieces in a debate, making them look as ignorant as they apparently are.

When you copy things from another website, it is customary to also post a link.
Otherwise, you're dishonestly passing this off as you own thoughts.

He didn't copy it from another website.

He copied it from this website?
Same statement applies.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Here's a quiz for you - Suppose you received in the mail a letter from a man who claims to be able to predict the market, asking you to invest with him, and he makes a prediction in the letter that the S&P 500 will go up over the next week. He turns out to be correct in his prediction. Do you invest with him? Of course not, it was one week, one prediction. But suppose he kept sending you letters, week after week - and each week he successfully predicts which way the market moves. How many weeks until you are convinced to invest with him?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the fact that you 're lying to yourself.
Neither are you.

I'm betting you'd lose a fortune on the guy after about 10 weeks of him 'successfully' predicting the market.

Apparently. you don't even know you're lying to yourself. Scary.

You just keep going, don't you? Not participating...

You're lying to yourself and thus to me..
Given that, participation is impossible.

Look up survivorship bias, try to elevate yourself above the "Investing for Dummies" level of knowledge, read some Nassim Taleb. You'll probably never need it, chances are you'll do fine. But you aren't looking for Black swans, if a depression hit that was worse than the Great Depression - fucks like you would be ruined, were it not for social security.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Privatizing Social Security is a vote losing proposition and, more importantly, is completely unnecessary. Jeb seems confused -- or is he deliberately confusing?

The old age pension part of SS is by far the largest program. Its actuarial problems are small to modest. Simply removing the cap on taxing earnings ($117,000 in 2014) would solve the funding shortfall. The last I looked SS old age pensions are also incredibly popular among both Democratic and Republican voters.

The disability insurance program is more of a challenge, despite its being far smaller in budgetary terms. More workers have been applying for DI benefits in recent years due to a weak economy. The problem would ease if labor force participation picks up. Will it ever pick up is the question?

Medicare (linked to but not an integral part of Social Security) and Medicaid (federal-state funding under public assistance) have both been plagued by rising costs under a broken health care system. Obamacare has made some inroads towards reining in costs -- and would have done much more if a single payer program had been passed instead of the hodgepodge that we have now.

But don't Republicans -- Jeb included -- want to kill Obamacare? Doing so would return us to the status quo which was largely responsible for the problem to begin with. Of course, there is always Paul Ryan's voucher plan, which would last about 10 minutes of careful scrutiny in terms of its impact on older citizens.

This is madness! It is also rank stupidity! I can't believe that there are Republican policy advisers out there counseling Jeb (and Chris Christie) on Social Security and Medicare. Hillary or any other Democratic candidate would tear Jeb or Christie to pieces in a debate, making them look as ignorant as they apparently are.

When you copy things from another website, it is customary to also post a link.
Otherwise, you're dishonestly passing this off as you own thoughts.

He didn't copy it from another website.

He copied it from this website?
Same statement applies.

I don't think he did. You're just making baseless accusations.

 

[nat4900]

PratchettFan
In that you are a citizen of this country and take advantage of the benefits of this country. You don't get that for free.

Hm. That sounds statutory.
Where does the constitution say that as the price of being a citizen of this country, I am responsible for the poor decisions of others?

Social Security makes you responsible for yourself. You'd prefer irresponsibility.

This is, of course, a lie.
I prefer choice, and once the choices.are made. expect others to take responsibility for their choices.
You know, like a responsible adult.

Successful investment has very little to do with anyone's choices....

Right, Successful investors are just lucky.

Sarcasm aside, YES, they are just as "lucky" as the professional GAMBLER who plays the odds...sometimes it works and most of the time it does not.....NO casino ever went broke from "succesful" gamblers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the fact that you 're lying to yourself.
Neither are you.

I'm betting you'd lose a fortune on the guy after about 10 weeks of him 'successfully' predicting the market.

Apparently. you don't even know you're lying to yourself. Scary.

You just keep going, don't you? Not participating...

You're lying to yourself and thus to me..
Given that, participation is impossible.

Look up survivorship bias, try to elevate yourself above the "Investing for Dummies" level of knowledge, read some Nassim Taleb. You'll probably never need it, chances are you'll do fine. But you aren't looking for Black swans, if a depression hit that was worse than the Great Depression - fucks like you would be ruined, were it not for social security.

You're lying to yourself and thus to me..
Given that, participation is impossible.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hm. That sounds statutory.
Where does the constitution say that as the price of being a citizen of this country, I am responsible for the poor decisions of others?

Social Security makes you responsible for yourself. You'd prefer irresponsibility.

This is, of course, a lie.
I prefer choice, and once the choices.are made. expect others to take responsibility for their choices.
You know, like a responsible adult.

Successful investment has very little to do with anyone's choices....

Right, Successful investors are just lucky.

Sarcasm aside, YES, they are just as "lucky" as the professional GAMBLER who plays the odds...sometimes it works and most of the time it does not.....NO casino ever went broke from "succesful" gamblers.

LOL! Good point. Its a little different though in that most casino games are designed for the house to win in the long run. If I buy a share of stock from you, my expected returns from the transaction are the same as yours (zero).

I should say - if you are trading on the floor, stock trading becomes more like a poker game. You need to know how to read physical signals from potential buyers or sellers, to determine how desperate they are to buy or sell. Floor trading relies a little less on luck and a little more on skill - just like poker.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hm. That sounds statutory.
Where does the constitution say that as the price of being a citizen of this country, I am responsible for the poor decisions of others?

Social Security makes you responsible for yourself. You'd prefer irresponsibility.

This is, of course, a lie.
I prefer choice, and once the choices.are made. expect others to take responsibility for their choices.
You know, like a responsible adult.

Successful investment has very little to do with anyone's choices....

Right, Successful investors are just lucky.

Sarcasm aside, YES, they are just as "lucky" as the professional GAMBLER who plays the odds...sometimes it works and most of the time it does not.....NO casino ever went broke from "succesful" gamblers.

Explain how long-term successful investors are consistently lucky - that is, how they consistently beat the law of large numbers.

Aside from that, you fail to understand that "gambling" requires winners and losers, whereas success in the market does not; thus, your use of the term in an attempt to conflate the market to a casino is, at best, incorrect.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'm betting you'd lose a fortune on the guy after about 10 weeks of him 'successfully' predicting the market.

Apparently. you don't even know you're lying to yourself. Scary.

You just keep going, don't you? Not participating...

You're lying to yourself and thus to me..
Given that, participation is impossible.

Look up survivorship bias, try to elevate yourself above the "Investing for Dummies" level of knowledge, read some Nassim Taleb. You'll probably never need it, chances are you'll do fine. But you aren't looking for Black swans, if a depression hit that was worse than the Great Depression - fucks like you would be ruined, were it not for social security.

You're lying to yourself and thus to me..
Given that, participation is impossible.

Do you even know what survivorship bias means? Probably never heard the term. You won't find it in Dumbo's Investing Book for Beginners because it doesn't play into the dollar-averaged-investing-i-am-a-moron investing mentality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

(useless drivel)

You're lying to yourself and thus to me..
Given that, participation is impossible.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Explain how long-term successful investors are consistently lucky - that is, how they consistently beat the law of large numbers.

You aren't including the failed investors in your sample, shit for brains. If you take 1024 people and have them try and predict whether a flipped coin will land on heads or tails, after 10 trials on average there will be around 1 person who has successfully predicted the result of the coin flip each time. An idiot like you would toss out the 1023 who failed and declare that the one who was "successful" has an ability to predict coin flips.

(its called survivorship bias, idiot. LOOK IT UP)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Explain how long-term successful investors are consistently lucky - that is, how they consistently beat the law of large numbers.

(useless drivel)

You're lying to yourself and thus to me..
Given that, participation is impossible.

 

[nat4900]

When you copy things from another website, it is customary to also post a link.
Otherwise, you're dishonestly passing this off as you own thoughts.

Is that a backhanded "compliment"? If so, thank you.

 

[FA_Q2]

It should be privatized and people be able to invest their money in a limited fashion. SS does not even give someone enough to live on let alone create real wealth for the one that is paying for it. There are many benefits a privatized system would have not the least of which is the possibility of passing that asset down to your children should you not utilize all of it.

It isn't intended to create wealth or provide something to pass onto one's children. It is intended to allow you to live when you can no longer work. It is intended to keep a roof over your head and food in your belly and that is it. If you want more, then you need to prepare for retirement. SS doesn't remove responsibility to plan for your future, it just creates a safety net so you don't end up in living in a cardboard box eating out of garbage cans.

And that is the entire damn point. First, they fail to achieve the 'safety net' you are talking about anyway considering that SS does NOT pay out enough to live decently. Second, the program removes SIGNIFICANT wealth from your possession thereby limiting your ability to build a REAL asset.

YOU pay for it - you should expect an asset WORTH what you pay?

That is the entire point but I think you missed it. The system is not designed for you to live decently - whatever you mean by that. It is designed so you can live. If you want to live decently, you need to supplement social security. A safety net, to extend the metaphor, is intended to keep you from hitting the ground. Not to keep you on the high wire.

Your point is really bad.

Essentially it boils down to the idea that a ‘safety net’ that barely provides squat and you admit does not provide even a basic amount of comfort is preferable over wealth creation and developing a real asset.

That is insane.

The fallback that your side seems to go to continually is what happens when they lose it all and that is a sky falling asinine statement. Any privatization system should include safeguards to prevent this. We are not talking about investing your entire egg into typewriters. There are MANY investment opportunities that are very secure over the long term. You WILL lose money in the short term but will gain it in the long.

Add to that the benefit of allowing people to see real advantages and growth in their own fund and they will be FAR more likely to invest on their own as well.

In the current system your money goes down a dark hole (and you don’t even see half of it) for a ‘benefit’ that keeps you in poverty when you realize it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

And when that bank goes belly up, like many did in 2008, then we have grandma and grandpa living in cardboard boxes under the overpass eating tins of cat food and trash they dug out of the bins?

Obviously you have no idea what investing is or how it is done.

That is why you have asinine statements like grandma living in a box after ‘the bank’ goes ‘belly up’ – not that the government seems to be able to allow them to go belly up anyway.

If you had a fund that you managed with, say your SSN money, actively invested you might understand these concepts and be able to understand the market enough to invest yourself.

 

[FA_Q2]

Jesus christ, what is wrong with this nut?

"
WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.

The future of Social Security has become one of the most hotly contested issues in national politics, and both parties have accused the other of threatening its survival. Republicans argue that Democrats’ refusal to change the program will lead to its bankruptcy. Democrats sayprivatization would kill the program and leave elderly Americans at the mercy of the stock market. Plus, any discussion of changing the system often creates fear in older Americans beyond or nearing the age of retirement, who also tend to vote in the greatest numbers.

Republicans have split on the answer to fix the program, which could begin to pay out more than it takes in as more baby boomers retire and younger generations aren’t able to pay enough into the system to keep it going. Understanding the fear privatization proposals create, some Republicans have argued that the retirement age should be increased or means-testing established instead. Many Democrats advocate raising the ceiling for the tax that funds it.
"

Jeb Bush Next president should privatize Social Security
The one good thing is, he will never get elected now..

Maybe the fact that he is 1000% right! The US MUST follow the Chilean model. It has nearly single handedly made Chile a 1st world nation. The model requires each employee to invest 10-20% of their income into the private social security system. At retirement age it goes into an annuity. In the meantime the money is invested and grows. The money is invested in Chile and the earnings go back to the individual. The money Americans currently pay to social security isn't invested and there is no growth. In fact we lose 15-75% (depending on the income bracket) of the money we put in to the system. In Chile they see a 7-10% growth.

These are the positive effects:

Chilean Model of Social Security FreedomWorks
• It generated surpluses without raising taxes, inflation, or interest rates
• Old-age pensions are 40-50 percent higher than the public pension system
• Disability and survivor pensions are 70-100 percent higher than the public pension system
• Significant decreases in the payroll tax have contributed to an unemployment rate below 5%
• Savings rates have sky rocketed and have deepened investment
• Growth rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years

It's commonsense economics that socialist will never understand!

The SS trust fund earned 94 billion dollars in interest last year.

I always find this rather funny. It made 94 billion in money that comes from tax receipts from investments purchased with tax receipts.

If you don’t see the irony here I don’t know what to say.

 

[FA_Q2]

People on retirement pensions, investment returns, Social Security, etc., live on their month to month checks. They can not afford to take large cuts during recessions and slow downs and wait years for things to get better. A person dependent on stock market returns can not tell the electric company, landlord, bank or whoever to wait about three of four years until the market rebounds.
The gamble is that if a recession hits anytime during you retirement, and you depend on a stock portfolio for income, you may have absolutely no income and be forced to sell your holdings at great losses just to survive. When the market rebounds you will have a shrunken portfolio and hence, a reduced retirement income.

What a steaming pile.

Leftism is truly based on ignorance and bigotry. People who retire move money into various sources. Money market, bond, secured equities. Your bullshit myth about retirees having all their funds in stock for Solyndra is a complete fabrication.

The VAST majority of people investing in IRA and 401K use brokerage funds which diversify by nature. for an 18 year old - the most unstable, fly by night stock is vastly more secure than Social Security. IF the USA exists in 50 years, Social Security sure won't.

Enron was a better investment than Social Security? pets.com? lol

Enron and Google better investments than SSN? Absolutely. Of course you only want to focus solely on companies that went out of business in the most extreme manner while ignoring anything else.

And since such an investment ‘strategy’ is simply not going to be the case you have nothing at all.